About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN 4
MSNBCW 4
CNNW 3
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
the charges, miranda rights, the public safety exemption, where are we right now on that issue? >> well, the normal rule is that when someone's irsed, they're advised of their rights. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can be used against you. you have the right to a lawyer. if you can't afford one it will be provided, that sort of thing. if police don't give that warning then they cannot use any statements of the defendant in court. the exception to that is called the public safety exception. it's been extended by judges to terrorism cases. and the idea is that if you need information quickly to preserve public safety, you can ask those questions and still use the responses in court. but that public safety exception rule is limited. it only applies for several hours after fill in the blank. we assume after questioning starts rather than after arrest. probably no more than a day, day and a half. >> where do you come up with that? pete, let me interrupt you there. who has come up with what is the time? is it just, you know it when you see it? >> in terms of the time li
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
, the first appearance was with judge marianne boulder and she was there to review his miranda rights with him, among other things. you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights. there's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give the
. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the whole case falls out unless everything -- >> so it's not the poison fruit thing? >> there is a poison fruit provision, standard. but it's very rare for it to pollute an entire case. >> let me ask you practically, why don't the law enforcement officials, the federal officials up there who have him in custody at the hospital, why didn't they just
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
minutes. i do not care if you read people their miranda rights, but do not shut down the intelligence gathering process. on the way he agreed to cooperate is the fbi flew to his family and his parents convinced him. hadtimes square bomber, he pakistan taliban ties and was read his miranda -- render rights and we never interrogating him for intelligence gathering purpose. osama bin laden's father-in-law was never designate and -- and an enemy -- son in law was never designated an enemy combatants. can you imagine what he could tell us? he was the spokesman for al qaeda after 9/11. there was a disturbing pattern of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. i will grab a pen and pad and we will go next door and i will answer questions about what you have about the fbi. we're way to observe a moment of silence here for the folks in boston. >> she was very bright, very political, which is why she and lincoln got together in the first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well educated. she had all of these things going for her, but she had suffered a
of the boat. >> no miranda warning, do you want to explain that to us. > that is a federal issue. >> what was the question? >> there was no miranda warning given they were claiming a public safety exception. >> there is a public safety exemption involving acts of terrorism. so the government has the opportunity, right now. i believe that the suspect has been taken to a hospital. thank you. yes? i'm sorry? >> are you going to seek the death penalty? >> this is still an active, ongoing investigation. we're going to be reviewing up of the evidence before that kind of a decision is made in terms of whether or not to seek the death penalty you review all of the evidence and it is a very thoughtful, long process that is engaged and it is the attorney general of the department of justice that makes that final decision. i'm sorry? karen? >> can you talk a little bit about when you were on the scene, was he moving around? how did you know it was a chance to take him into custody? >> we know he did not go straight to the boat. when we set up the perimeter with the best intentions with a lot of info
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)